Qualitative Special Education Research

An Expanded View of Evidence

Over the past decade, scholars in special education have tackled the laudable goal of identifying and promoting standards for rigorous research across methodologies. The rationale and theoretical work was first widely distributed in a 2005 special issue of Exceptional Children (see Odom et al., 2005). Researchers acknowledged both the essential connection between research and practice and the importance of various designs in contributing to the special education knowledge base. In that issue, Brantlinger, Jiminez, Klingner, Pugach, and Richardson (2005) argued that qualitative research is empirical and outlined several broad criteria for assessing the rigor of qualitative studies. Then, in 2009, researchers used the 2005 criteria for rigor to examine the evidence base through meta-analyses of the extant literature in several key areas of practice including literacy and reading, mathematics, writing, and behavioral interventions. While this second special issue greatly contributed to the field’s conceptualization of evidence-based practices, it focused primarily on group experimental studies and single-subject research designs. These foci aligned with national calls from the field of education writ large, promoting experimental research as the “gold standard” (Odom et al., 2005) with its ability to generalize results serving as an efficient and cost-effective method for identifying evidence-based practices (National Research Council, 2002, 2005; Slavin, 2002, 2003). Employing the scientific method, explicating and raising the standards for rigor, and linking standards of research to the development of an evidence base for the practice of education are all forward-thinking steps toward solving real world problems in education.

Equally important to solving complex educational problems, however, is the field’s ability to be nimble and agile, expertly using a variety of methods, across disciplines and paradigms (Lather, 2006). Some scholars have been concerned that definitions of evidence-based practices and criteria for rigor have been too narrow (Eisenhart, 2006; Eisenhart & Towne, 2003; Schwandt, 2005, 2012), arguing for expanded perspectives on what counts as scientifically based research (SBR). Critics of SBR and the promulgation of experimental designs argue for conceptual expansion. Eisenhart and Towne (2003; both members of the National Research Council and contributing authors to the Council’s capstone publications, Scientific Research in Education and Advancing Scientific Research in Education) asserted that standards for SBR must reflect the breadth and scope of methods and criteria for rigor. Multiple epistemological, ontological, and axiological perspectives support methodological stances and strategies that result in ethical and viable scholarship (Lather, 2006). Special education scholars have also called for expansion of SBR beyond experimental designs. These critics have pointed out that SBR conceptualizations that are anchored to positivistic foundations are, in fact, not objective and lack robust theoretical tools required for the consideration of complex social problems such as disproportionality (Arzubiaga, Artiles, King, & Harris-Murri, 2008; Ortiz & Yates, 2010).

Our aim in this special issue on qualitative research has been to select exemplary special education research that showcases the promise and potential for understanding complex issues in special education research and practice through the use of qualitative methods. We aspire to meaningful paradigm expansion furthering the field’s practice and acceptance of knowledge that is essential to the special education evidence base without devolving into the paradigm wars of decades past. Most recently, the Council for Exceptional Children (CEC; 2014) published standards for determining evidence-based practices, restricting these to the consideration of group comparison and single-subject research. While CEC’s purpose was to identify standards for research that stake claims about causality, we hope this special issue serves as an empirically based reminder of the importance of considering evidence that aids in the meta-understanding of causality through the examination of context, perspective, theory, and epistemology.

Defining Significance and Rigor in the Qualitative Context

An open call for papers for this special issues resulted in 50 submissions. Exemplar studies selected for publication illustrate rigorous design and implementation, paradigmatic and methodological diversity, and a range of content and foci, marking a significant contribution to our collective abilities to tackle complex and sustained challenges in our field.

We purposefully chose the concept of rigor as an overarching theme of this special issue. We wanted to bridge discussions of what counts as good research in special education to other educational disciplines such as education, policy studies, and disability studies, where qualitative research is more commonly accepted as a valid way of knowing (i.e., establishing evidence). Our intent is to acknowledge and address the tension between special education’s efforts to codify research standards, on one hand, and the larger cross-disciplinary insistence on a broader conceptualization of quality that establishes explicit paradigmatic alignment and internal theoretical consistency as a base standard, on the other hand (Trainor & Graue, 2012). As researchers who often, though not exclusively, use qualitative methods, we are adverse to encampment, and we recognize standards as simultaneously valuable and potentially exclusionary.

Both anecdotally and empirically, researchers have provided examples of the challenges of the dismissal of qualitative research as not sufficiently rigorous or unscientific (Ceglowski, Bacigalupa, & Peck, 2011; Stanley, 2007). We intentionally selected papers that provided a balance of methodological responsiveness, interpretation, and specificity, avoiding two familiar pitfalls on a continuum of methodological transparency: on one end, the cavalier dismissal of a thorough discussion of what was done and why, and on the other, claims of replicability through reported profusion of detail. In addition, we advocated for additional space for each paper. In our view, limiting the number of pages to the customary 25 to 30, as required by most journals for manuscript submission, may align with demands of publishers. These page limits, however, do not necessarily align with qualitative criteria for rigor requiring researchers to include reflexive, iterative, and responsive design implementation and a thorough discussion of findings with data examples (not to mention a thorough literature review and theoretical framework!).

Finally, we attempted to maximize diversity across papers. We selected articles with topical and methodological diversity in mind. We sought content areas that are often represented by quantitative studies (e.g., studies of positive behavior supports) and participant groups whose experiences and perspectives are less commonly presented in qualitative extant literature (e.g., teachers and administrators). We featured research across methods, both those that are acknowledged contributors to special education research (e.g., social validity studies) and those that may be less familiar to some readers in our field (e.g., studies using qualitative data for theoretical expansion).

The Articles

The introductory article by Trainor and Graue outlines expanded criteria for rigor for qualitative design, implementation, peer-review, and dissemination. They call for paradigmatic expansion that recognizes the many values of qualitative research beyond its use as an exploratory or descriptive method. In doing so, they make a case for the need for expanded criteria for rigor that includes explicit discussions of the role of theory, transparency, positionality, and reflexivity in the design and execution of qualitative research. They exemplify their points by including exemplar studies from the extant literature.

The second article (Leko) presents a case for the value of using qualitative methods when conducting research on the social validity of interventions. In the course of her discussion, Leko presents findings from a study of secondary teachers’ perceptions of the social validity of the System 44® reading intervention. The use of qualitative methods led to an in-depth examination of how teachers make decisions about social validity and delineated subcomponents of the social validity construct including (a) macro and micro goals; (b) procedures for planning, delivering, and assessing instruction; (c) intervention materials; and (d) outcomes related to instructional quality, stigmatization and students’ achievement, and socio-emotional development and engagement.

The third article (Thorius, Maxcy, Macey, & Cox) is an exemplar of how qualitative research can be used as a critical lens to collect and analyze empirical data that can identify, describe, critique, and challenge current paradigms and practices that are inequitable or present enduring challenges to the field of special education. This study presents findings from a case study of one urban school’s enactment of a Response to Intervention (RTI) framework. The findings shed light on the complexities undergirding teachers’ appropriation of policy- or research-based practices that are “nested within systems that are veritable pressure cookers of competing policies, agendas, and standardized teaching and testing” (Thorius et al., 2014, p. 297).

The fourth article by Kim and Garcia examines a complex issue in special education—the schooling experiences of long-term English Language Learners (ELLs)—and illustrates the importance of multi-layered approaches to data collection, researcher reflexivity, and analysis to achieve depth and complexity. Kim and Garcia, through interviews and in-depth document analysis, explored the schooling experiences of 13 long-term ELLs. Their findings provide implications for improving the educational experiences of students who have a strong desire to succeed yet are often mis- or underserved in existing special language programs.

The fifth article (Annamma) illustrates how qualitative methods can serve as a representational lens. This piece illustrates the technical affordances of qualitative methods to include voices and experiences of populations that are often undetected or de-emphasized in other approaches to research because these participants comprise small segments of a given population and/or subgroups and individuals with diminished access to power and privilege. The population Annamma examines is young women of color identified with emotional disabilities in the School-to-Prison-Pipeline.

The sixth article by Bal, Kozleski, Schrader, Rodriguez, and Pelton (appearing in Part 2 of this special series) shows how qualitative methods can be used for theoretical expansion. They expanded theoretical models of Positive Behavioral Intervention Supports (PBIS) to be Culturally Responsive (CRPBIS) by “facilitating positive, inclusive and democratic school cultures via ecologically valid and sustainable systemic transformations led and owned by local stakeholders” (Bal et al., 2014). In doing so, they present an in-depth case on one elementary school’s participation in Learning Lab (LL) methodology which employs cycles of continuous reflection and action by school personnel, family members, community partners, and researchers.

The final piece (also appearing in Part 2) is by Pugach, Mukhopadhyay, and Gomez-Najarro, who provide a response to the aims and purposes of this special issue. They provide a compelling discussion of several methodological issues that span the articles included in this two-part special issue.

Moving Forward

We are honored and grateful to have had the opportunity to serve as guest editors for this special issue of Remedial and Special Education. First and foremost, we would like to thank Drs. Erik Carter and Kathleen Lane for accepting our proposal and partnering with us throughout the editorial process. We are especially appreciative of their willingness to support us as we took an in-depth look at issues surrounding the value and rigor of qualitative research in special education. We would also like to thank the authors whose work, we believe, will heighten the field’s awareness of the contributions qualitative research makes in understanding our field’s greatest challenges. We are hopeful that greater understanding will contribute to improving the lives of students with disabilities, their families, and the professionals who work with them. We also thank those individuals who served as reviewers and provided instructive, enlightening feedback.

As we mentioned earlier, we received 50 abstracts for potential submissions to this special issue. We were in awe of the thoughtful, compelling qualitative work that is being done by a range of scholars in special education and other related fields. We look forward to seeing more qualitative work in press. We hope that the conversations that ensue from this special issue widen the pathway for these (and other) authors to disseminate their qualitative research within our field and open the door for greater understanding of purpose and rigor in qualitative research.